WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

To give minorities special treatment for being minorities is quite disgusting. I have never, EVER agreed with affirmative action. Everyone talks about the starting point for black people being well behind that of white people... well there are pieces of white trash out there with absolutely no potential whatsoever and there are rich black people out there as well. If the black community would stop spending so much time saying "We're black - you have to give us special treatment because we're black" and start saying "We're black, we should be treated equally and we are going to work just as hard as white people and we're going to create our own opportunities just like white people do." They need to stop this whole "entitlement" attitude and start working on themselves and providing for themselves as a community. There's nothing wrong with having cultural pride, but I find the way that many, not all, but many people in the black community walk around and think the world owes them because of how their ancestors were treated is absolute shit.

If I run a private corporation and it's my business and I only want to hire white Jews, it's my perogative. The government should not tell me who I can and cannot hire. BUT - if I fire someone because of their race... then, well that's a different story.

(ii)The City&#8217;s assertions that the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity are blatantly contradicted by the record, which demonstrates the detailed steps taken to develop and administer the tests and the painstaking analyses of the questions asked to assure their relevance to the captain and lieutenant positions. The testimony also shows that complaints that certain examination questions were contradictory or did not specifically ap-ply to firefighting practices in the City were fully addressed, and that the City turned a blind eye to evidence supporting the exams&#8217; valid-ity. Pp. 28&#8211;29.

(iii) Respondents also lack a strong basis in evidence showing an equally valid, less discriminatory testing alternative that the City, by certifying the test results, would necessarily have refused to adopt .Respondents&#8217; three arguments to the contrary all fail. First, respondents refer to testimony that a different composite-score calculation would have allowed the City to consider black candidates for then-open positions, but they have produced no evidence to show that the candidate weighting actually used was indeed arbitrary, or that the different weighting would be an equally valid way to determine whether candidates are qualified for promotions. Second, respondents argue that the City could have adopted a different interpretation of its charter provision limiting promotions to the highest scoringapplicants, and that the interpretation would have produced less dis-criminatory results; but respondents&#8217; approach would have violated Title VII&#8217;s prohibition of race-based adjustment of test results,§2000e&#8211;2(l). Third, testimony asserting that the use of an assessment center to evaluate candidates&#8217; behavior in typical job tasks would have had less adverse impact than written exams does not aid respondents, as it is contradicted by other statements in the record indicating that the City could not have used assessment centers for the exams at issue. Especially when it is noted that the strong-basis-in-evidence standard applies to this case, respondents cannot create a genuine issue of fact based on a few stray (and contradictory) state-ments in the record. Pp. 29&#8211;33.
(iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City&#8217;s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today&#8217;s holding the City can avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33&#8211;34.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

WASHINGTON  The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.

"The city's action in discarding the tests violated (federal law)," the Supreme Court majority wrote Monday, adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified.

The city argued its action was prompted by concern that disgruntled African American firefighters would sue. But that reasoning didn't hold sway with the court's majority.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," the court ruled.

Twenty firefighters  19 white and one Hispanic  who were denied promotions in New Haven, Conn., claimed city officials discriminated against them because they were more concerned about potential complaints of Civil Rights Act violations than their performance on advancement exams.

The white firefighters argued discrimination is discrimination no matter what color it takes, and therefore, the city did violate the Civil Rights Act in not promoting the white and one Hispanic firefighters.

Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who earlier ruled that New Haven officials acted properly.

The reversal could be used as ammunition by some senators who don't want to see Sotomayor confirmed.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!